Formlessness (inside & outside)
Formlessness (inside & outside)
How can we know for certain that the totality is formless (infinite)?
Isn't it possible for there to be an interior without an exterior.
When you introduce an exterior, by logical necessity, you always invite formlessness.
But what if our universe has no outside? Isn't it possible for the universe to be bounded by something which has no outside?
What I'm trying to get at is really hard to articulate.
Isn't it possible for there to be an interior without an exterior.
When you introduce an exterior, by logical necessity, you always invite formlessness.
But what if our universe has no outside? Isn't it possible for the universe to be bounded by something which has no outside?
What I'm trying to get at is really hard to articulate.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
That's right. There is nothing outside the totality simply going by the definition of "totality".
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
From my last entry in the "Cosmology and Kosmos" thread:
(**We have no clue to the extent of the actual "totality" of all matter/energy/plasma in the *universe*... meaning *all there is.*)
I'll leave it there for now. Hope it makes sense. Open to questions to clarify my meaning.
So to elaborate on your OP, the "bubble" of cosmos is finite but expandng outward into the infinity of space. There may be other "bubbles doing the same**... maybe to eventually "run into each other", but of course this is shear speculation, even from the limited perspective of my mystic vision.... in which our cosmic event horizon is limited to a small sphere *within the thickness* of the "rubber" of the overall expanding "balloon" of cosmos.I agree with your description of what "isotropic" means.
If I remember correctly, I was agreeing with Broke that the cosmos looks relatively the same over long distances in all directions, i.e., "smooth" rather than "lumpy" on large scale.
But my (mystic) vision is that all we can see, given the cosmic event horizon limit, is but cosmic matter all at one locus/sphere within the "thickness" of the membrane of the expanding "balloon" of cosmos. That is, the known cosmos is but a sphere of "vision" contained within one small piece within the ever expanding "rubber" of the entire baloon membrane. We can not see beyond the balloon either in the direction of its expansion or in the direction of its (cyclical) origin. And, from this perspective, it looks "smooth."
It is, however, expanding into the infinite void of space... whch is not all the same density as the cosmic matter we can "see."
(**We have no clue to the extent of the actual "totality" of all matter/energy/plasma in the *universe*... meaning *all there is.*)
I'll leave it there for now. Hope it makes sense. Open to questions to clarify my meaning.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
But does the definition of totality necessarily imply formlessness? Just because the totality has no exterior, does not necessarily mean it's formless. Or does it?Matt Gregory wrote:That's right. There is nothing outside the totality simply going by the definition of "totality".
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
Ok, but what if there is one ultimate bubble, the biggest of all bubbles. And what if this bubble is not expanding, but is simply still. And what if this ultimate bubble had no outside, but only had an interior. This would imply that the totality had a form, but only on the inside.mikiel wrote: So to elaborate on your OP, the "bubble" of cosmos is finite but expanding outward into the infinity of space. There may be other "bubbles doing the same.
- Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
Well, form implies that a boundary exists which is defining that form. If a boundary were to have an inside but no outside (or an outside but no inside for that matter), then in what way would the boundary exist? It wouldn't because there wouldn't be anything being bounded.Loki wrote:But does the definition of totality necessarily imply formlessness? Just because the totality has no exterior, does not necessarily mean it's formless. Or does it?
Forget about bubbles and expansion and so forth with respect to the totality. Those things only apply to things with form. When you say that a certain thing expands, it implies that there's the thing and the expansion and that without the expansion that thing would still be fully understandable, but no such logic can be applied to the totality. Nothing can be removed from the totality without misunderstanding it.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
"What if?... indeed. Science sees cosmos as expanding, in fact, accellerating in its rate of expansion. But "cosmos" (as we know it) is defined by the cosmic event horizon... that the speed limit of light traveling immense distances limits how far we can see... both in the direction of the expansion and in the direction of the origin of the expanding cosmic "stuff."Loki wrote:Ok, but what if there is one ultimate bubble, the biggest of all bubbles. And what if this bubble is not expanding, but is simply still. And what if this ultimate bubble had no outside, but only had an interior. This would imply that the totality had a form, but only on the inside.mikiel wrote: So to elaborate on your OP, the "bubble" of cosmos is finite but expanding outward into the infinity of space. There may be other "bubbles doing the same.
I have seen in mystic vision that this cosmic event horizon is all within the thickness of the "rubber" of the expanding (from the Big Bang) "balloon"...
A small "sphere" (in all directions we look) within the "membrane" of the larger sphere of the whole "Big Bang" cosmos... the expanding balloon.
Space is infinite. It is imopssible to define a boundary or end of space. Cosmos then is discussed on different levels of "size." Only pretenders will claim to know the extent (size, shape, dynamics) of *all there is* the original meaning of the word uni-verse... read "totality" in common usage here.
BTW, any cosmological model as a "bubble" or "balloon" must have an inside ( void or of less density than its membrane) and an outside... the relatively empty space surrounding it, whether it is expanding or not.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
If Totality is formless, it is void of form and therefore does not exist.
Trying to conceptualize about a concept leads to an infinite regress, in other words, "it's turtles all the way down".
Trying to conceptualize about a concept leads to an infinite regress, in other words, "it's turtles all the way down".
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
But must a boundary have a space on each side of it?Matt Gregory wrote:Well, form implies that a boundary exists which is defining that form.Loki wrote:But does the definition of totality necessarily imply formlessness? Just because the totality has no exterior, does not necessarily mean it's formless. Or does it?
Picture this line:
left | right
The boundary (the line) has a left side and a right side. Is it possible for a boundary to only have one side?
Picture yourself in a small room. The boundary of the room consists of 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor.
What if the totality is a container (like a room) that has no outside?
That would mean that the totality is finite and had form.
Sure there would! The living space is bounded by 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor.If a boundary were to have an inside but no outside (or an outside but no inside for that matter), then in what way would the boundary exist? It wouldn't because there wouldn't be anything being bounded.
The universe may be a cube.....
Deep stuff.
*smiley icon smoking pot*
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
That could only be if there was a nothingness outside the container. You can't escape the need for an outside concept if your thinking of a form.Loki wrote:But must a boundary have a space on each side of it?Matt Gregory wrote:Well, form implies that a boundary exists which is defining that form.Loki wrote:But does the definition of totality necessarily imply formlessness? Just because the totality has no exterior, does not necessarily mean it's formless. Or does it?
Picture this line:
left | right
The boundary (the line) has a left side and a right side. Is it possible for a boundary to only have one side?
Picture yourself in a small room. The boundary of the room consists of 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor.
What if the totality is a container (like a room) that has no outside?
That would mean that the totality is finite and had form.
To me, the Totality is both form and formless.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
Boundaries can only exist between one thing and another. If something shares a boundary with nothing, then obviously it is not bounded. Based on this the Totality is necessarily boundless, and without bounds there can be no form. This is why we fall into all kinds of contradictions when we try to project a form on to the Totality. It does not, and can not work.Loki wrote:Sure there would! The living space is bounded by 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor.If a boundary were to have an inside but no outside (or an outside but no inside for that matter), then in what way would the boundary exist? It wouldn't because there wouldn't be anything being bounded.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
The contradiction is believing that there is a formless Totality. The simple fact that you can conceive of a formless Totality proves that there isn't one - because any conception is itself a form. Not to mention the obvious brute reality that there are forms surrounding you everywhere at all times.Nick Treklis wrote:Based on this the Totality is necessarily boundless, and without bounds there can be no form. This is why we fall into all kinds of contradictions when we try to project a form on to the Totality. It does not, and can not work.
So what is the use of this imaginary formless Totality?
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
So what is the use of this imaginary formless Totality?
To get a fucking grip, to use vulgar words.
The totality has form in its formless-ness. That is it's form.
To get a fucking grip, to use vulgar words.
The totality has form in its formless-ness. That is it's form.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
Another worthless cryptic post from prince. Are you trying to be cleverly laconic but just can't pull it off?
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
This is show on Steven Hawking's Paradox where he posits some strange claim.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=d ... &start=100
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=d ... &start=100
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
That's for you to decide.Jason wrote:Another worthless cryptic post from prince. Are you trying to be cleverly laconic but just can't pull it off?
Are you happy, Boy?
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
All supposed boundaries that can be ascribed to Totality are simply illusory, mental constructs, as are the opposing non-boundaries. An object can not manifest and maintain another object.
It's not that hard to grasp guys....all this mental masturbation is just silly and a monumental waste of time.
It's not that hard to grasp guys....all this mental masturbation is just silly and a monumental waste of time.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
Understanding the logical truth that the Totality is necessarily formless is in no way projecting a form on to it. It's actually the complete opposite, which is demonstrating through logic that it is necessarily formless. Thinking about something does not necessitate projecting a form on to it. You have to see the ridiculousness of your assertion.Jason wrote:The contradiction is believing that there is a formless Totality. The simple fact that you can conceive of a formless Totality proves that there isn't one - because any conception is itself a form.
Your grasp on logic is worse than I suspected if you think this even comes close to proving that the Totality has form.Jason wrote:Not to mention the obvious brute reality that there are forms surrounding you everywhere at all times.
Use it for whatever you want, or don't use it at all, I really don't care. But that's not what this is about, it's about the truth.Jason wrote:So what is the use of this imaginary formless Totality?
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
Maybe the problem is that we're approaching this from different angles. Perhaps the following will help clear things up:Nick Treklis wrote:Understanding the logical truth that the Totality is necessarily formless is in no way projecting a form on to it. It's actually the complete opposite, which is demonstrating through logic that it is necessarily formless. Thinking about something does not necessitate projecting a form on to it. You have to see the ridiculousness of your assertion.Jason wrote:The contradiction is believing that there is a formless Totality. The simple fact that you can conceive of a formless Totality proves that there isn't one - because any conception is itself a form.
The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.
I'm important enough in your life for you to have suspicions about me?! How sweet. Group hug! :)Nick Treklis wrote:Your grasp on logic is worse than I suspected if you think this even comes close to proving that the Totality has form.Jason wrote:Not to mention the obvious brute reality that there are forms surrounding you everywhere at all times.
I have suspicions about you too: that you're prone to having flare ups of anger when discussing philosophy on GF and that this interferes with the clarity of your mind.
The truth is that reality is filled with forms - so obviously this "formless Totality" isn't about reality or truth, it's a fantasy in your head.Nick Treklis wrote:Use it for whatever you want, or don't use it at all, I really don't care. But that's not what this is about, it's about the truth.Jason wrote:So what is the use of this imaginary formless Totality?
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
But does the meaning of the concepts have form? Isn't meaning more like a feeling (unlike simple information)?Jason wrote:The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
Meanings and feelings are forms too, they have characteristics and qualities.divine focus wrote:But does the meaning of the concepts have form? Isn't meaning more like a feeling (unlike simple information)?Jason wrote:The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
You're confusing the concept with the actual Totality.Jason wrote:The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.
Reality contains forms, but reality as a whole can not posess form, because Ultimate Reality, by definition, is everything. With this being the case, it can not posess form if there is nothing to contrast it with.Jason wrote:The truth is that reality is filled with forms - so obviously this "formless Totality" isn't about reality or truth, it's a fantasy in your head.
The reason you think the Totality exists within my head as a fantasy is because like I said above, you are confusing a conception of the Totality with the actual Totality.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
I don't think that there is an actual formless Totality in the first place.Nick Treklis wrote:You're confusing the concept with the actual Totality.Jason wrote:The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.
Nick Treklis wrote:Reality contains forms, but reality as a whole can not posess form, because Ultimate Reality, by definition, is everything. With this being the case, it can not posess form if there is nothing to contrast it with.Jason wrote:The truth is that reality is filled with forms - so obviously this "formless Totality" isn't about reality or truth, it's a fantasy in your head.
Reality as a whole is the entire collection of all forms that exist within reality. That's why it's not formless - it's constituted of forms.
Reality as a whole is not a particular form, it is every particular form.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
Ok.Jason wrote:I don't think that there is an actual formless Totality in the first place.
Reality is more than just the collection of forms. It also contains things that do not posess form, e.g. logic and consciousness. It is also a collection of everything we have not and/or never will imagine. So when we define the Totality as: (everything which posesses form and everything that does not, everything imagined and unimagined, no begining and no end, not subject to time, i.e. it is literally everything, everywhen, and everywhere) there is nothing to contrast it with.Jason wrote:Reality as a whole is the entire collection of all forms that exist within reality. That's why it's not formless - it's constituted of forms.
Reality as a whole is not a particular form, it is every particular form.
With that said, give me an example of a form that could theoretically exist if there were nothing aside from it.
Re: Formlessness (inside & outside)
You're defining "forms" differently to me then I think.Nick Treklis wrote:Reality is more than just the collection of forms.Jason wrote:Reality as a whole is the entire collection of all forms that exist within reality. That's why it's not formless - it's constituted of forms.
Reality as a whole is not a particular form, it is every particular form.
By my definition they are forms too.It also contains things that do not posess form, e.g. logic and consciousness.
I agree that that's what the Totality(reality in its entirety) is.It is also a collection of everything we have not and/or never will imagine. So when we define the Totality as: (everything which posesses form and everything that does not, everything imagined and unimagined, no begining and no end, not subject to time, i.e. it is literally everything, everywhen, and everywhere)
Ok, but there are still contrasts existing between the constituent parts.there is nothing to contrast it with.
The problem I saw was in your claim that the Totality is "formless." To me that sounded like the forms/things/parts contained within the Totality somehow magically disappeared and what was left was a unity with no distinctions, no divisions, just one undivided thing lacking any internal forms/things/parts whatsoever. Maybe that's not how you view the Totality after all?